In the summer of 1990, while pastoring a
denominational church in rural Mississippi, 1 felt led to teach a Bible study
series on the New Testament pattern for the church and its leadership. We were
not very far into this study before I began to seriously question the
scripturalness of many of our church practices and traditions. Most troublesome
was the question of whether or not my own position as the Pastor of a local
church was a scriptural one.
I had always assumed that the one-Pastor
system, being the pattern followed in the overwhelming majority of churches
today, was founded upon Scripture. But as I began to earnestly study the
Scriptures on the issue of church leadership, one disturbing question kept
intruding itself-a question I present here for the sober consideration of the
reader. Where in Scripture is there warrant for one man to be the spiritual
leader and authority over the local church?
Never mind that this is the pattern
unquestioningly followed throughout Christendom today. Where is it in Scripture?
As I searched the length and breadth of the New Testament, it became obvious to
me that such a pattern was nowhere to be found. Rather, I found that the
primary role in shepherding the New Testament churches was exercised, not by a
solitary Pastor, but by a plurality of men, described as “elders” or overseers.
“And when they had ordained them elders in
every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on
whom they believed” (Acts 14:23).
“From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for
the elders of the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood” (Acts 20:17-28).
“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the
bishops and deacons” (Philippians 1:1).
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldest set in order t he things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every
city, as I had appointed thee”(Titus 1:5).
“Is any sick among you? let him call for the
elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the
name of the Lord” (James 5:14).
The quotation above from Acts 20 makes it clear
that the “elders” and “overseers” are the same persons, and that it is they who
are given responsibility to shepherd, or pastor the church of God. (“Shepherd”
is the literal meaning of the word “pastor.”) So while others besides elders may
exercise a pastoral gift-Bible teachers, for instance, there is no hint in
Scripture of anyone claiming to be “the Pastor” of a local church and assuming
a position of oversight apart from and superior to the work of the elders. We
read nothing of a “Senior Pastor,” or “Presiding Elder.” Such titles, in fact
come perilously close to blasphemy, since Christ Himself is spoken of as “the
Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).
The apostle Peter confirms that the terms “elders”
and “overseers” refer to the same persons, and that their work is that of
pastoring the flock:
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who
am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a
partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof,
not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1
Peter 5:1-2).
So when we read in Ephesians 4:11 that God has
given “some as pastors” (literally, “shepherds”), can we not assume that this
refers primarily to these elders, or overseers, and not to a one-man office
about which the rest of the New Testament is completely silent. Nor is all this
mere wrangling over terminology.
The point to be fixed clearly in the mind from
the above scriptures is that, in the New Testament, churches were never
shepherded by one man, whatever his title or designation, but by a plurality of
men. Further, the clear impression given by these scriptures is that elders
were generally raised up by God from within the local church, not hired and
imported from outside-and certainly not from the ranks of a professional “clergy”.
This Gives Rise to Another
Question
Where in Scripture is there any such thing as a
servant of the Lord contracting to receive a stated salary from a church? The
New Testament clearly sets forth the principle that those who preach the gospel
are entitled to “live from the gospel” (Matthew 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Timothy
5:17-18), but there is never any indication that this involves a stated salary,
but rather, free will gifts:
“Let him that is taught in the word communicate
unto him that teacheth in all good things” (Galatians 6:6).
“Now you Philippians know also that in the
beginning of the gospel... no church shared with me concerning giving and
receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again
for my necessities” (Philippians 4:10-16).
“Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey
diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. And let ours also learn to
maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful” (Titus
3:13-14).
The only case in Scripture of a “minister”
receiving a fixed salary occurs in Judges 17-a situation filled with compromise
and idolatry!
But did not Jesus say, “The laborer is worthy
of his hire” (Luke 10:7)? True, but the briefest glance at the immediate
context, where these laborers are instructed to carry neither purse nor scrip,
and to “eat and drink such things as are set before you”-shows that a fixed
salary was the last thing our Lord had in view. Yes, the Lord's laborer is
worthy of his hire, but who is it that “hires” him? In whose employ is he--the
church's or the Lord's? Surely the Lord's, but the system of a salaried
pastorate implies otherwise. I cannot help but believe that the present-day “Pastor
search” process, complete with resumes, salary negotiations, trial sermons, and
the like, is a grievous offence to the Spirit of God. Again our urgent question
must be: where is all this in Scripture?
Where also is the notion that the public
ministry of the Word is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that
it is contingent upon him being “ordained” by some human authority? On the
contrary, we read:
“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let
the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn,
and all may be comforted” (1 Corinthians 14:29-31).
Regardless of one's view concerning the nature
of the gift of prophecy and its validity for today, it is abundantly clear that
the practice of one man monopolizing the public ministry of the Word was
utterly foreign to the New Testament churches.
Sad Consequences
So when confronted with the plain teaching of
Scripture, I could not escape the conclusion that the oversight of the local
church is to be exercised by mature brethren raised up by the Holy Spirit from
within the church. And that public ministry of the Word is open to any brother
who has been divinely gifted for it. In contrast, most churches today entrust
the spiritual leadership of the congregation and the vast majority of the
public ministry to a solitary Pastor, who is chosen from among the professional
“clergy,” imported from outside the church and promised a fixed salary for his
services. Can the reader-with his New Testament open before him-deny that this
is a drastic departure from the scriptural pattern? Indeed it is, and it has
had predictably severe consequences on the spiritual life of churches. The
following are only some of the problems that are created or aggravated by this
unscriptural one-Pastor system:
(1) Perpetuates the deplorable
distinction between “clergy” and “laity.” No more pernicious device of the
devil has ever been deployed than this utterly unscriptural distinction.
Pastors today grieve about being unable to involve the “laity.” without ever
considering that it is the very system of dividing Christians into two classes
that is to blame.
The answer is not to “involve” the laity, but
to abolish it! Away with the idea that Christian work is the province of a
special few!
(2) Causes believers to neglect their
own responsibility for witnessing to the lost, encouraging the brethren,
in-depth Bible study, visiting the sick, etc., out of a conscious or
subconscious assumption that these are “the Pastor's Jobs.” Often the only one
visibly working for Christ in the community is the Pastor, whose witness is
impaired by the fact that he is perceived as paid to do so, And how rare is
serious Bible study outside of the Pastor's study! There is a widespread
delusion that only the “ordained” Pastor is qualified to mine the riches of
God's Word, and that only he is responsible for using the Word to encourage the
brethren and warn the lost. As a result, men who have been believers in Christ
for thirty or forty years and “by this time ought to be teachers” are still
being spoon-fed them- selves. (Hebrew 5:12) In our churches today this is not
the unfortunate exception. It is the norm. Of all the damage wreaked by the
unscriptural system of handing over the ministry of the church to a single
professional (or in larger churches, a staff of professionals), this
debilitating effect on the men of the congregation is perhaps the most tragic.
(3) Leaves little or no room for the
exercise of spiritual gifts, other than the Pastor's, in the gatherings of the
church.
(4) Leads to churches being built in
the flesh, as programs, promotion, and the Pastor's personality must replace
the spiritual gifts of the body.
(5) Produces widespread discouragement
among Pastors, who are trying earnestly to fill an unscriptural role.
(6) Denies Pastors the fellowship in
the ministry they so desperately need. Usually the difference in spiritual
vision and ministry responsibility between the Pastor and the congregation is
so wide that his only meaningful fellowship is with other Pastors, who are not
fellow-laborers in the same field, but have their own fields to worry about.
(7) Tends to negate the presidency of
the Holy Spirit in the church. Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of
the Spirit, his perception is clouded by his own personality, desires, etc. How
much better, when formulating plans or making a decision, for the elders as a
group, along with other spiritual men, to come before the Lord in prayer until
the Holy Spirit speaks and brings them to a consensus, as in Acts 13:1-3.
(8) Since one man is given
responsibility for the entire ministry of the church-and since no one man has
all the gifts-Pastors are forced to spend much of their time doing ministry
they are not supernaturally gifted to do, or else that ministry goes undone.
(9) Creates a situation where one
person, the Pastor, can turn a doctrinally sound church into a heretical church
overnight. Having multiple elders, while not providing absolute immunity from
doctrinal error, is a powerful check against heretical teaching.
(10) Leads to a paralyzing shortage of
national Christian workers in many mission areas, because of the assumption
that these workers must be professionally trained and imported from outside the
church. Where is the confidence that the Lord has already supplied the body
with the leadership gifts needed?
(11) Puts undue pressure on the Pastor's
wife and children, as they are forced to live in a “fishbowl” environment as “the
preacher's” family.
These are but a sampling of the consequences that
I believe can be laid squarely at the feet of unscriptural beliefs and
practices concerning the ministry.
Some Objections
Answered
Objection 1: The proper role of a pastor is not
to assume the entire ministry of the church, but to mobilize and equip the
saints to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, most of the problems you have
listed are results, not of the single-Pastor system itself, but of the abuse of
that system.
Reply:
Since the single-Pastor system is universally beset with these problems,
the burden of proof lies on its defenders to prove that the system itself is
not at fault, particularly since it is a system with no warrant in Scripture.
The concept of a church led by a Pastor-equipper who mobilizes the saints to do
the work of the ministry sounds attractive, but the experience of thousands of
frustrated Pastors testifies that it simply does not work. There is simply too
deeply ingrained a perception in the minds of the congregation that Christian
work is for a special few. The clergy-laity gap is the great demobilizer of the
saints. Anyone trying to abolish that gap is doomed to failure while clinging
to a system where one man, professionally trained and credentialed, is viewed
as “the Minister.” Incidentally, those who espouse the concept of the Pastor-
equipper normally have a very limited notion of what the “work of the ministry”
includes. For instance, even the Pastor who makes equipping the saints an
emphasis of his ministry will normally call a fellow clergyman-not someone from
the congregation-to fill the pulpit when he is away.
Objection 2: The approach you have suggested
would produce incompetent church leadership at best, and doctrinal mayhem at
worst.
Reply: This is a serious charge because
it I implies that the Holy Spirit is incompetent in placing the proper
leadership gifts within each church. Is it seminary training that qualifies a
man for leadership in the church, or the gifts of the Spirit? We have often
been guilty of giving lip service to the latter, while placing greater weight
on the former.
Objection 3: The word “overseer” is singular in
1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 where the qualifications of the overseer are
described. This suggests at least the possibility of “overseer” being a one-man
work.
Reply: It is a most natural use of
language to employ the singular when describing the qualifications of a
position. For instance, I might say, “A United States Senator (or even, the
United States Senator) must be a man of integrity. honor, etc.” without in the
least implying that there is only one United States Senator, or even one per
state! To stress Paul's perfectly explicable use of the singular here, while
ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the New Testament, would be a
strange and twisted exegesis. At any rate, a closer look at Titus 1:5-7 rules
out the possibility that Paul was advocating a one-pastor system. How can the
use of the singular “overseer” in verse 7 possibly imply that each local church
is to have only one overseer, when two verses earlier Paul had introduced the
subject by reminding Titus of his instructions to “appoint elders [plural I in
every city”? To my mind, this is conclusive.
Objection 4: Were not the “Pastoral Epistles”
addressed to single individuals?
Reply: This objection is based on the
common misconception that Timothy and Titus were each “Pastors” of local
churches. This is simply not true. To quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Bible
Dictionary: “Though these letters do furnish worthwhile directions for pastors,
the addressees were not Pastors in the usual present-day sense of that term.
Rather, they were Paul's special envoys sent by him on specific missions and
entrusted with concrete assignments according to the need of the hour”.
Objection 5: What about the leadership role of
James at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). Epaphras at Colossae (Colossians 4:12). And
Epaphroditus at Philippi (Philippians 2:25)?
Reply: This objection, which I have heard
used in defense of the one-Pastor system is a patent example of reading the
Word of God through the distorting lens of tradition. James, the Lord's
brother, was an apostle (Galatians 1:19). Not a Pastor. Epaphras was an
evangelist. The “fellow bond-servant” of Paul who brought the gospel to the
Colossians (Colossians 1:7). (Strange that if he were “Pastor” of the church at
Colossae. he is never seen as present there, but always with Paul elsewhere!
(Colossians 4:12; Philemon 23) Epaphroditus is simply described as one of
Paul's fellow-workers who was sent by the Philippian church as a minister to
his needs. All this is evidence for the one-Pastor system?
Objection 6: Do not the “angels” of the
churches in Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. “To the angel of the church
in Ephesus write...,” etc.), and is there not one per church?
Reply:
No person reading the New Testament apart from preconceived notions
would ever imagine that the “angels” of Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors.
Although the Greek word angelos may be translated “messenger,” in every other
occurrence of the word in Revelation-and it occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably
refers to literal angels. If it does mean “messenger” in Revelation 2-3, it
still could hardly be stretched to mean “pastor.” In every case where the New
Testament uses the phrase messenger of...” (e.g. “messenger of Satan,” “messengers
of John,” etc.), it always describes by whom the messenger is sent, never to
whom. In other words, “the messenger of the church in Ephesus” would not likely
mean a messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church,
perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in his exile on
Patmos and to receive instructions from him.
Objection 7: Perhaps the many New Testament
references to multiple elders are due to the fact that, while each church had
only one elder or overseer, each city had several different churches. For
instance, when Paul writes to “the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,
including the overseers and deacons” (Philippians 1: 1), there may have been a
number of congregations in Philippi, each with their own overseer, or Pastor.
Reply: This reasoning may seem to answer
certain passages, but it utterly falls apart in view of others, such as Acts
14:23 (“So when they had appointed elders in every church...), James 5:14 (“Let
him call for the elders of the church”), etc.
Objection 8: Even if it can be proven that the
New Testament churches had multiple elders that would not necessarily be
normative for the church today. After all, everyone agrees that believers in
the Jerusalem church sold their goods and had all things in common, yet who
suggests returning to that pattern today?
Reply: To say that the pattern of the New
Testament church is not normative for us today is tantamount to saying that God
has left us without any pattern at all. Distressing thought! Has God really
left us at the mercy of human ingenuity in deciding how the ministry of His
Church is to be ordered? Rather, let us say with the Psalmist, “I esteem right
all Thy precepts concerning everything” (Psalm 119:128). In regard to the
selling of goods by believers in the Jerusalem church: (1) The passage in
question, Acts 2:42-47, does not say that all those who believed sold all their
possessions. This was not “Christian communism” as it is sometimes pictured.
The use of the imperfect tense in verse 45 implies that from time to time, as
necessary, they sold their goods to distribute to brethren in need. (2) I, for
one, am not prepared to say that the example of these early Jerusalem saints is
not the norm for believers today, particularly in light of the words of John's
epistle:
“But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth
his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how
dwelleth the love of God in him” (1 John 3:17).
Objection 9: You cannot deny that God has
through the years mightily blessed many Pastors and churches who have used the
one-Pastor system, and continues to do so today.
Reply: No one would think of denying
this. Yet the problems mentioned above cannot reasonably be denied either. And
who would claim that the fruitfulness of the Church as a whole is anywhere near
the divinely intended level? Besides, it is a mistake to think that because God
graciously blesses someone operating under a certain set of beliefs or
practices, that He thereby endorses those beliefs or practices. God has, for
instance, greatly used many preachers, teachers, and missionaries who have held
to the teaching that Christians may lose their salvation. Yet few who are
taught in the Scriptures would suggest that this view therefore has God's
sanction, or that it is unimportant to uphold the scriptural teaching of
Salvation. Praise God, He does not require us to be perfect in our
interpretation of Scripture before He will use us. If so, who could hope to be
used? But as we are given further light on the Scriptures, it is our duty and
our Joy to conform our beliefs and practices as nearly as possible to the Word
of God.
Objection 10: A multiple-elder system might well
solve some problems, but at the same time it would create a whole new set of
problems of its own.
Reply: This I willingly admit. When,
however, you are operating under a scriptural pattern, the problems that arise
are scriptural problems. That is, they are problems that have been anticipated
in Scripture and for which guidance is provided in Scripture. Also, let us not
forget that, quite apart from the question of what problems might be solved or
created, we ought to follow the New Testament pattern simply because it is the
New Testament pattern. We conform to the authority of Scripture as a matter of
principle, not for pragmatic reasons. But when we do so, we invariably find
God's way to be the best way.
Objection 11: Surely you don't think all the
problems you mentioned would vanish if our churches simply changed their
pattern of leadership?
Reply: Unfortunately, no. Not overnight
at least, particularly where the clergy-laity mentality has been firmly
entrenched for decades. But even in such a case a return to the New Testament
pattern, if wholeheartedly adopted by the local church, would certainly produce
a dramatic effect. The manifold problems and unscriptural attitudes nurtured by
the false clergy-laity distinction could at least begin to be resolved. In
other situations, where a fresh start is possible (such as on the mission
field, in new churches, or with new converts), these problems can be avoided
altogether.
What shall we say then? The one-man pastorate,
far from having the sanction of Scripture, is essentially a “Protestantized”
holdover from the Roman Catholic clerical system. For those of us who claim the
Bible, rather than tradition, as our authority, it is time to fervently search
the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11).
I would that every reader of this booklet might
share the blessing I have found by “turning my feet to His testimonies” (Psalm
119:59) and choosing to meet in fellowship with those who gather in New
Testament simplicity and order. I have written more about this in a small
booklet entitled, What I Have Found: My introduction to “brethren” assemblies.
* A free copy may be obtained by writing to the publisher of this booklet.
By Mark Frees
Published by:
Spread the Word
2721 Oberlin Drive
York, PA 17404
-------------------